State Implementation Plans:
What Are They and
Why Do They Matter?
A Primer on SIPs for Energy Regulators
Authors
Kenneth A. Colburn
Brenda K. Hausauer
Christopher A. James
July 2012
The authors thank several people who made important contributions to the
preparation of this primer. John Gerhard provided research and comments
on several drafts. Rich Sedano and John Shenot provided valuable
comments on the final drafts. Camille Kadoch edited the document.
Electronic copies of this paper and other RAP publications
can be found on our website at www.raponline.org.
To be added to our distribution list,
please send relevant contact information to
[email protected].
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Brief Overview of Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Role of State, Local, and Tribal Governments under the Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State Implementation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effectiveness of the Federal Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Air Quality Management Plans: Moving Beyond SIPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A: Required SIP Elements for Certain NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Examples of Health and Welfare Impacts of Various Pollutants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Pollutants Regulated by Certain Clean Air Act Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Nonattainment Severity Classifications under the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Areas in Nonattainment of the 2008 NAAQS for Ground-Level Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Areas Potentially for Nonattainment of a Future NAAQS for Ground-Level Ozone . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. Illustration of Periodic NAAQS Revisions and State SIP Processes under the Clean Air Act. . . . 12
Figure 4. Illustration of an Integrated Modeling Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 5. Economic Growth vs. Reduction in Criteria Pollutant Emissions, 1970-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Executive Summary
T
he U.S. electricity system faces
and describing ways in which each can help
During this time
multiple urgent challenges
the other. The Clean Air Act is described
of compounded
during the next several years to
briefly, including its history, main goals, types
challenges, reliable,
address mounting transmission
of pollutants regulated, impacts of those
affordable, clean
needs, adapt to smart grid technologies,
energy solutions are pollutants, and the roles of the EPA and states
expand energy efficiency and renewable
in implementing the law. This primer then
not likely to occur
energy use, and meet increasingly stringent
discusses NAAQS, how they are developed,
unless energy and
environmental requirements. Air quality
the components of the standards, and what
air regulators work
management faces equally daunting
happens when states do not attain the
closely together,
challenges imposed by the need for greater
NAAQS. Finally, the SIP process is described,
and understand
health and environmental protection,
what motivates each including how air regulations are developed
diminishing state and federal budgetary
agency and how each and updated through that process. The SIP
support, and aging regulatory approaches.
process has been effective at improving air
conducts its work.
During this time of compounded challenges,
quality, but deficiencies and criticisms exist,
reliable, affordable, clean energy solutions
so the primer takes a quick look at how states
are not likely to occur unless energy and
are moving toward more effective, multiair regulators work closely together and understand what
pollutant-oriented air quality planning in the future.
motivates each agency and how each conducts its work.
The public demands reliable, affordable, clean energy
For energy regulators, such understanding begins with
solutions. By understanding the obligations, structure, and
an appreciation of the federal Clean Air Act’s provisions
processes in which each agency acts, and working closely
regarding National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and purposefully to simultaneously meet state energy and
(NAAQS) and State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The
air quality goals, energy and air quality regulators can best
Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection
satisfy the public’s interest. If energy regulators choose not
Agency (EPA) establish health-based NAAQS; states must
to engage with their air quality counterparts in this quest,
achieve those standards by developing and implementing
air regulators will be left with only those solutions under
a SIP, a comprehensive, multi-sector suite of measures to
their control, which are reasonably likely to favor endreduce pollutant emissions enough to meet the NAAQS.
of-pipe options costing far more than solutions that are
This primer details that process.
available under the energy regulators’ control. Air officials,
This report begins by discussing some of the differences
of course, have a similar obligation to engage with the
between state energy regulatory and air quality agencies
energy regulators.
2
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Introduction
T
he next several years will be an
Installing SO2 controls required capital
Energy officials
important and unsettled time
expenditures, however, which required
can benefit from
for energy production and air
utilities to initiate cost recovery proceedings
cooperation with
pollution control in the United
and energy regulators to adjust rates
air regulators; by
States. As the federal government adopts
considering air quality accordingly. By working closely together
and implements new regulations to reduce
going forward, energy and air regulators
issues when choosing
harmful pollutant emissions and to address
among various energy have the opportunity to identify ways to
climate change, many power plants and
resources, they and the simultaneously meet state energy goals
large energy users will be impacted to a
and achieve compliance with air pollution
utilities they regulate
greater extent than in the past. In addition,
regulations.
can help reduce
new state policies associated with energy
Energy officials can benefit from such
future environmental
production and use will be necessary to
cooperation; by considering air quality
compliance costs and
meet federal air quality regulations. Just as
increase policy certainty issues when choosing among various
the public seeks least-cost energy options,
energy resources, they and the utilities
regarding energy
it also wants least-cost compliance with
they regulate can help reduce future
and environmental
science-based, health-protective air quality
environmental compliance costs and increase
requirements in
standards. Due to the emissions impacts
policy certainty regarding energy and
their states.
of the energy sector, and the expertise
environmental requirements in their states.
of public utility commissions (PUCs) in
In addition, new air pollution regulations
evaluating integrated resource portfolios and least-cost
will provide a new impetus, rationale, and set of options
alternatives, least-cost air quality compliance is unlikely to
for energy efficiency efforts. Air regulators can similarly
be realized without the engagement of energy regulators. As benefit from energy regulators’ input as they seek to apply
a result, it will behoove energy and air quality regulators to new regulations to the power sector; working together will
collaborate to an unprecedented degree in order to ensure
facilitate the identification of better, more flexible ways
that policies to reduce air pollution and energy use are
to comply with air pollution regulations. Because they
carefully coordinated to produce maximum synergies at the are accustomed to integrated planning approaches, for
least possible cost.
example, energy officials may be able to help air regulators
It is clear that energy regulators’ decisions affect air
develop more effective, multi-pollutant approaches to
quality. Delivered electricity consumption is projected
addressing pollution.
to increase by about 0.9% per year through 20351; if
As the work of energy and air officials overlaps more
this growth were to come at today’s system average
and more, it is crucial for each to better understand the
emission rates, overall air pollution would increase by
obligations, structure, and processes in which the other
about 24%, undoing the last 15 years or so of clean air
acts. Although the work of energy and air officials may
progress and public health improvement. Similarly, air
increasingly overlap, each has distinct missions, statutory
regulators’ decisions impact the energy sector; the federal
authorities, and responsibilities.
acid rain control program, for instance, successfully and
cost-effectively reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011
through the first large-scale application of cap-and-trade.
3
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Much of the statutory authority of
regarding SIPs, a key cornerstone of air
Much of the statutory
state air regulators, for example, flows
authority of state air regulators pollution control in the United States
directly from the Clean Air Act and
under the federal Clean Air Act. SIPs,
flows directly from the Clean
is delegated to states to implement.
and the health-based NAAQS that they
Air Act and is delegated to
State, local, and tribal air officials2
address, are the primary means by
states to implement. State,
are responsible for meeting the
which states develop – and the federal
local, and tribal air officials
requirements of the Act by undertaking
government enforces – programs
are responsible for meeting
air quality management planning for
and policies to reduce ambient air
the requirements of the Act
their jurisdictions and developing and
pollution as required by the Clean Air
by undertaking air quality
implementing regulatory programs to
Act. Although air officials often find
management planning
control air pollution.3 This contrasts
the process for developing SIPs to
for their jurisdictions and
markedly with the broad, state-specific
developing and implementing be onerous, the process provides the
statutory authority of most PUCs. The
framework, impetus, and funding for
regulatory programs to
processes employed by air quality and
states to monitor and ensure healthy air
control air pollution. This
utility regulators also differ significantly;
quality.
contrasts markedly with the
whereas utility commissions typically
The following sections of this paper
broad, state-specific statutory
initiate dockets, qualify intervening
provide
background for energy officials
authority of most PUCs.
parties, hold quasi-judicial proceedings,
on the federal Clean Air Act and the
and determine orders based solely on
EPA’s implementation of it; the role of
the evidentiary record derived, environmental regulators
state, local, and tribal governments under the Act; NAAQS;
generally issue proposed regulations, seek public comment, and SIPS. Concluding sections reflect on the historical
conduct one or more public hearings, revise the proposed
effectiveness of the Clean Air Act, and on some jurisdictions’
rule as necessary, and promulgate it. Subsequent challenges efforts to undertake more comprehensive, integrated, and
are then litigated in the courts.
cost-effective air quality management planning that can
Electric system reliability is a primary obligation
be far more state-specific and may encompass air quality
of energy regulators, whereas healthy air quality – as
goals that exceed federal requirements or address issues not
measured by adherence to or “attainment” of federal
covered in federal law.
standards – is a principal duty of air quality regulators.
Energy officials monitor reliability through such metrics
as system average interruption duration and frequency
indices.4 They address reliability deficiencies through
specific response proceedings, such as construction
preapproval and/or general system demand projections
2 Unless otherwise noted, references to “states” in this paper are
intended to apply generally to state, local, and tribal air quality
and utility-specific efforts, like integrated resource
jurisdictions.
planning. Ultimately, elected officials oversee energy
regulators’ performance, or the regulators stand for election 3 The five key air quality management tools include ambient
standards, control measures, licensing/permitting, enforcedirectly. Air quality officials measure exceedances of air
ment, and assessment.
quality standards at monitoring stations, and address
“nonattainment” deficiencies by adopting emission control
4 The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
defines several reliability indices in IEEE-P1366, “Guide for
measures and incorporating them into SIPs mandated by
Electric Distribution Reliability Indices.” Among the most
the federal Clean Air Act. As officials of executive branch
common are the System Average Interruption Duration
agencies, they too ultimately report to elected officials,
Index (SAIDI), System Average Interruption Frequency Index
although the EPA also judges their performance as to
(SAIFI), Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
whether the SIPs they submit are approvable.
(CAIDI), Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index
In support of greater common understanding, this
(CAIFI), Customers Interrupted per Interruption Index (CIII),
and the Average Service Availability Index (ASAI).
guide for energy officials provides background information
4
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
A Brief Overview of the Clean Air Act
amendments significantly increased the authority and
responsibility of the federal government for air pollution,
and included new programs for acid rain, an expanded
program for controlling toxic air pollutants, and new
provisions for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.
As reflected in the 2004 National Research Council
report, Air Quality Management in the United States, the
main goals of the Clean Air Act are:
• Mitigating harmful human and environmental
exposure in the ambient air from the “criteria”
pollutants: ground-level ozone, particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
and lead;
• Limiting the sources of and risks from hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), also called air toxics;
• Protecting and improving visibility impairment in
wilderness areas and national parks;
• Reducing the emissions of pollutants that cause acid
rain: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; and
• Curbing the use of chemicals that deplete the
stratospheric ozone layer.7
A key characteristic of the Clean Air Act is that it
distinguishes between two distinct kinds of air pollutants,
so-called “criteria” pollutants and “toxic” or hazardous
pollutants. “Criteria” pollutants are those for which
NAAQS have been promulgated. The management of
criteria pollutants is largely accomplished through control
measures tailored by state, local, and tribal governments in
their SIPs, as described below. Toxic compounds, however,
are primarily regulated at the federal level (except where
states have chosen to go beyond minimum Clean Air Act
requirements). Table 1 shows the health and welfare effects
of these pollutants, along with some of their sources.
The federal Clean Air Act5 is a far-reaching statute that
requires the EPA to control air pollutants known to be
harmful to human health and environmental welfare. The
current law reflects amendments enacted in 1990, but the
roots of the Clean Air Act go back as far as the 1950s. In
1955, Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act; it
established air pollution research and technical assistance at
the federal level but left states and municipalities in charge
of air pollution control. The first Clean Air Act, passed in
1963, launched a federal program for air pollution control
within the U.S. Public Health Service and established
additional research into monitoring and controlling air
pollutants. Federal efforts expanded with the 1967 Air
Quality Act, when enforcement proceedings related to
interstate air pollution
The first strong,
transport commenced,
comprehensive federal
and emission inventories,
program to control
monitoring studies, and
air pollution came
control activities were
about with the 1970
established.
amendments to the
The first strong,
Clean Air Act. Four
comprehensive federal
major new elements
program to control air
– which have since
pollution, however, came
become cornerstones of
about with the 1970
federal air policy – were
amendments to the Clean
instituted: NAAQS, SIPs,
Air Act. This legislation
NSPS, and NESHAPs.
created federal requirements
All four have significant
to limit emissions from
impacts on electric
stationary, mobile, and
generating units.
other air pollution sources.6
Four major new elements
– which have since become
cornerstones of federal air policy – were instituted:
NAAQS, SIPs, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs). All four have significant impacts
on electric generating units. Also created in 1970 was the
EPA itself. The new agency was immediately tasked with
implementing the Clean Air Act, initiating a significant
expansion of the federal government’s planning and
enforcement authority regarding air pollution.
Major amendments to the Clean Air Act were
subsequently made in 1977 and 1990. The 1990
5 U.S. Code 42 § 7401 et. seq.
6 “Stationary sources” typically reflect industrial facilities –
factories, power plants, refineries, smelters, and the like.
“Mobile sources” are vehicles, both on-road (i.e., cars
and trucks) and off-road (e.g., construction equipment,
agricultural equipment). A third category, called “area
sources,” reflects small, typically commercial facilities like dry
cleaners, bakeries, paint shops, and so on that individually
have small air quality impacts but in aggregate may have
impacts warranting regulation.
7 National Research Council, 2004
5
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Table 1
Examples of Health and Welfare Impacts of Various Pollutants8
Pollutant
Ozone (O3)
Examples of Sources
Formed in the atmosphere from
volatile organic compounds
(e.g., vehicle exhaust) and oxides
of nitrogen in the presence of
sunlight
Health Effects
Welfare Effects
Eye and throat irritation, coughing, Damage to crops, forests,
respiratory tract problems, asthma, other plants and ecosystems
lung damage
Particulate Matter
Diesel engines, power plants,
(particles, soot, or PM) industries, windblown dust, wood
stoves
Eye irritation, asthma, bronchitis,
lung damage, cancer, heavy metal
poisoning, cardiovascular effects,
premature mortality
Visibility impairment,
atmospheric deposition,
aesthetic damage
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Coal-fired electric power plants,
petroleum refineries, manufacture
of sulfuric acid and smelting of
ores containing sulfur
Eye irritation, wheezing, chest
tightness, shortness of breath,
lung damage
Contributes to the formation of acid rain, visibility
impairment, plant and water
damage, aesthetic damage
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicles, electric power
plants, and other industrial,
commercial, and residential
sources that burn fuels
Susceptibility to respiratory
infections, irritation of the lung
and respiratory symptoms (e.g.,
cough, chest pain, difficulty
breathing)
Contributes to the formation
of ozone smog, acid rain,
water quality deterioration,
global warming, and
visibility impairment
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Motor vehicle exhaust, indoor
sources include kerosene or wood
burning stoves
Headaches, reduced mental
alertness, heart attack,
cardiovascular diseases, impaired
fetal development, death
Contributes to the
formation of ozone smog
Lead (Pb)
Metal refineries, lead smelters,
battery manufacturers, iron and
steel producers
Anemia, high blood pressure, brain Affects animals and plants,
affects aquatic ecosystems
and kidney damage, neurologic
disorders, cancer, lowered IQ
Heavy Metals
(e.g., Mercury,
Arsenic, Chromium,
Cadmium)
Combustion of coal and oil,
industrial processes (many are
PBTs: persistent toxins that
bioaccumulate in the food chain)
Animals may experience
Associated with a variety of cancer
impacts as well as neurologic devel- similar health problems as
opment, renal (kidney) dysfunction, humans
and a number of other impacts
Toxic Compounds
(Hazardous Air
Pollutants [HAPs])
Vehicles, industrial processes,
factories, refineries, power plants,
building materials, solvents,
cleaners, and so on. Some toxics
are also emitted from natural
sources (e.g., volcanic eruptions
and forest fires)
Cancer and other serious health
effects including damage to
immune, neurologic, reproductive,
and respiratory systems and
developmental effects
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a
6
Animals may experience
similar health problems as
humans
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
The EPA implements, administers, and
These and other regulatory programs
Since 1970 the EPA has
enforces the Clean Air Act at the federal level. revised, strengthened, of the Clean Air Act typically seek to
Its role is primarily to:
address one or more public health issues
and established
1.Establish acceptable (e.g., healthor welfare concerns. As shown in Table 2,
new standards
protective) concentrations of pollutants
however, some pollutants contribute to
several times, and
in the ambient air;
more than one air quality problem, so it is
has routinely issued
2.Establish emission limits and other
not uncommon for emissions of individual
related regulations
regulatory requirements for controlling
pollutants to be regulated under multiple
and guidance
them;
Clean Air Act programs, often with differing
documents.
3.Revise the ambient and emissions
parameters in terms of applicability, reduction
standards in accordance with prescribed
requirements, and timeframes. This can lead
schedules that reflect and incorporate
to understandable confusion and frustration
scientific developments; and
on the part of the regulated community.
4.Enforce the emission standards as necessary.
Although this paper focuses on NAAQS and SIPs, there
are many additional provisions of the Clean Air Act, the
Consistent with these provisions, since 1970 the EPA
implementation of which typically involves requirements
has revised, strengthened, and established new standards
that are incorporated into state SIPs. Described further
several times, and has routinely issued related regulations
below, these provisions include Prevention of Significant
and guidance documents. Among the agency’s many
Deterioration, NSPS, New Source Review, the Regional
actions, the EPA adopted new NAAQS for ground-level
Haze program, and others.
ozone and fine particulate emissions in 1997, revising the
standards again for particulates in 2006 and for ozone in
The Role of State, Local, and Tribal
2008. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision
Governments Under the Clean Air Act
in Massachusetts et al v. EPA, greenhouse gas (GHG)
Although the Clean Air Act is a federal statute, much
emissions from stationary and mobile sources became
of its implementation for criteria pollutants is “delegated”
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, starting with
to state, local, and tribal governments. This structure
GHG emission reporting requirements for large sources in
9
2011. In addition, two major new regulations affecting the recognizes that because air quality issues vary widely with
power sector – the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule10 (CSAPR) respect to different geographic areas, different pollutants,
and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) – were
and different emission sources, these jurisdictions may be
finalized in 2011.11
better positioned than the EPA to design geographically
Table 2
9
Pollutants Regulated by Certain Clean Air Act Programs
Volatile
Mercury
Organic
and Other
Compounds
Toxic
(VOCs)13
Compounds GHGs
SO2
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOX)12
Acid Rain
•
•
Ozone
•
•
Particulate Matter
•
•
Mercury and Toxics
•
•
Regional Haze
•
•
Permitting
•
•
•
•
Clean Air Act
Program
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 2012
10 On December 31, 2011, implementation of
CSAPR was stayed by the DC Circuit. The
Court heard oral arguments on April 13,
2012, and a decision is expected later in
2012.
11 For more information, see http://www.epa.
gov/crossstaterule/ (CSAPR) and http://www.
epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/ (MATS).
12NOX is regulated because ground-level ozone
is formed by an atmospheric reaction of NOX
and VOCs.
•
7
13 Some toxic compounds are emitted in the
form of VOCs.
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
optimal pollution control solutions. The
their derivation, primary standards are
Although the Clean Air Act is
EPA establishes health-based ambient
often referred to as “health standards,”
a federal statute, much of its
pollution concentration standards
and secondary standards are often called
implementation for criteria
(i.e., the NAAQS), and designates
“welfare standards.” It is important to
pollutants is “delegated”
areas as being in “attainment” or
note that the Act requires the EPA to
to state, local, and tribal
“nonattainment” of those standards.
base its NAAQS decisions solely on
governments. This structure
State and local governments are
medical and scientific information about
recognizes that because air
required to work with the EPA to
health and welfare impacts. Economic
quality issues vary widely with
develop and implement SIPs14 that will
respect to different geographic impacts are considered as regulations are
reduce emissions sufficiently to achieve
areas, different pollutants, and developed and implemented, but not in
attainment within the period specified
different emission sources, these determining the NAAQS themselves.
by the Clean Air Act.
The EPA has set NAAQS for the six
jurisdictions may be better
State governments are responsible
“criteria”
pollutants: carbon monoxide,
positioned than the EPA to
for monitoring ambient air quality,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead,
design geographically optimal
inspecting facilities, and enforcing
ozone, and particulate pollution (both
pollution control solutions.
the regulations that comprise the SIP.
coarse and fine particles15). Some of
these pollutants are emitted directly
They must also demonstrate to the
from sources (e.g., SO2, CO, lead). Others are formed in
EPA at regular, three-year intervals that progress toward
the atmosphere by chemical reactions involving precursor
attainment is being made. The EPA must approve state
plans to meet the NAAQS, and can impose sanctions if they pollutants; ground-level ozone, for instance, is created in the
atmosphere through reactions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
are inadequate, untimely, or not implemented. State plans
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of
also become “federally enforceable,” such that the EPA
sunlight. Some pollutants, such as fine particulate matter,
can step in and enforce them directly if state governments
are both emitted directly and also formed by reactions in the
fail to do so. In exchange for carrying out these federally
atmosphere. Adding to this already complex picture is the
delegated Clean Air Act provisions, states receive funding
fact that some criteria pollutants occur naturally to varying
and assistance from the EPA for their state and local air
degrees (e.g., low levels of ozone, particulate matter from
quality programs. The Clean Air Act also requires states
wildfires and dust, and certain VOCs from trees and other
to collect annual emission fees (assessed as dollars per
plants). Further, virtually all of these pollutants can be transton emitted), from major sources. Most states also charge
ported by prevailing winds to other jurisdictions, although
for pre-construction review and preparation of the draft
typical transport distances vary greatly.
construction permit.
The EPA establishes a standard for each criteria pollutant
–
designated
as a primary or secondary standard (or both)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
– that includes an averaging time over which the pollutant
is measured, a physical limit (typically expressed as the
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to develop NAAQS to
concentration of the pollutant in the outdoor air), and a
regulate pollutants present in the ambient (outside) air that
are harmful to human health and the environment and that
result from numerous and diverse stationary or mobile sourc14 Tribal jurisdictions may develop Tribal Implementation Plans
es. Other air pollutants – such as toxic compounds – are
(TIPs) instead of SIPs, but are not required to do so. Since
regulated as well, but typically through rate-based or abso1998, Tribes have express authority to manage air quality on
lute emission limits on specific sources rather than NAAQS.
their reservations. 40 CFR 49 specifies tribal authority under
The Clean Air Act identifies two types of NAAQS: primary
the Clean Air Act.
standards, providing public health protection, including pro- 15 Coarse particulate matter denotes airborne particles 10
tection for sensitive populations; and secondary standards,
microns in diameter or smaller, and is often referred to as
providing protection against damage to animals, crops,
PM10. Fine particulate matter denotes particles 2.5 microns
in diameter or smaller, and is similarly labeled PM2.5.
vegetation, buildings, and decreased visibility. Reflecting
8
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria
pollutant, depending on whether ambient pollutant concentrations in the area violate the NAAQS. In the case of broad
urban areas, the EPA often applies consistent designations
across census-based metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or
consolidated MSAs (CMSAs). Such designations may include
counties in more than one state. An area may be in attainment for some pollutants, and nonattainment for others.
Designated nonattainment areas are also classified with
respect to the severity of their unhealthy pollution levels;
areas with more severe pollution must adopt more stringent control measures but are given more time to attain the
NAAQS. Table 3 shows nonattainment classifications, corresponding pollutant thresholds in the atmosphere (called
design values18), and number of years allowed to reach attainment for 8-hour ground-level ozone.
During the 1970s and 1980s, many areas had unhealthy
pollution levels, especially for ozone and particulate
matter. As a result, beginning in 1977 Congress established
prescriptive program mandates for nonattainment areas. In
1990 Congress made additional changes, including ranking
areas as to the severity of their ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter pollution. Congress also specified new
general mandates for all nonattainment areas and a number
of more specific requirements for ozone and particulate
Table 3
matter pollution (see Appendix A for a sample list).
Nonattainment Severity Classifications
Currently, areas that do not attain the ozone and
under the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 16
particulate matter NAAQS by their deadlines are
immediately reclassified to the next highest level
Primary Standard
of severity. This gives the area more time to attain
8-hour
Attainment Date
design value
(years after designation for
the standard, but also requires it to adopt the more
(ppm ozone)
Area class
2008 primary NAAQS)
stringent and prescriptive control measures specified
for that severity classification.
Marginal
From 0.076
3 years after December 31, 2012
Up to 0.086
Another important change that came with the 1990
Clean
Air Act Amendments was greater recognition
Moderate
From 0.086
6 years after December 31, 2012
provision that stipulates whether or how often the limit can
be exceeded and still allow an area to meet the NAAQS for
that pollutant. For example, under the NAAQS for groundlevel ozone established in 2008, the averaging period is
eight hours, the limit is 0.075 parts per million (ppm)
(although it is commonly referred to as 75 parts per billion
[ppb]), and areas are not considered to be violating the
NAAQS until the three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration
at any ozone monitor is greater than 0.075 ppm. In
other words, the three highest ozone occurrences (or
“exceedances”) per year are discarded, but the fourth one
“counts” toward the three-year average. If the three-year
average is greater than the ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm,
then the area “violates” the standard. Although it sounds
complex, this form of the NAAQS increases regulatory
stability and provides a better gauge of ozone’s actual health
risks. States may set standards that are stronger, but not
weaker, than the NAAQS.17
States are required to monitor and analyze ambient
concentrations of criteria pollutants throughout their jurisdictions, and the EPA provides funding for these activities.
Based on monitored data, the EPA designates counties as
Up to 0.100
Serious
From 0.100
Up to 0.113
9 years after December 31, 2012
16 Federal Register, 2012
Severe-15
From 0.113
Up to 0.119
15 years after December 31, 2012
17 States may also establish standards for pollutants for
which there are no federal equivalents.
Severe-17
From 0.119
Up to 0.175
17 years after December 31, 2012
Extreme
Equal to or
above 0.175
20 years after December 31, 2012
* but not including
9
18 Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to have one
ozone exceedance per year averaged over a three-year
period. A fourth violation in that period leads to that
area being classified as nonattainment. Data from the
three-year period are reviewed, and the fourth highest
concentration is the design value. The level of the design value determines that area’s specific classification,
as shown in Table 3.
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
that air pollution is often transported by
The Act imposed upon states intervals, but they include many phases
prevailing winds from upwind jurisdictions whose emissions contribute and stakeholders and are complicated
to downwind ones. Specifically the Act
materially to nonattainment and time-consuming; it often takes many
imposed upon states whose emissions
years to review and revise a single NAAQS.
areas in downwind states
contribute materially to nonattainment
The NAAQS for ground-level ozone, for
an obligation to reduce
areas in downwind states an obligation
example, was revised in 1997, again in
their own emissions in
to reduce their own emissions in order
2008, and may be changed again soon.19
order to make it possible
to make it possible for downwind areas
for downwind areas to have Periodic review of the NAAQS is not
to have healthy air. This obligation
healthy air. This obligation optional at the EPA’s discretion, however;
applies even if the upwind state itself is in
applies even if the upwind it is an obligation under the Act. The EPA
attainment of the NAAQS. Recognizing
state itself is in attainment is regularly sued – and regularly loses in
court – when it fails to comply with this
that air pollution does not respect state
of the NAAQS.
obligation.
borders and that the eastern United States
The ramification of periodic NAAQS
had suffered for decades from unhealthy
revisions is evident in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows
ozone levels, the 1990 Amendments also designated an area
areas in nonattainment of the 2008 NAAQS for groundfrom Maine to northern Virginia as the “Northeast Ozone
level ozone (75 ppb) based on 2006-2008 monitoring data.
Transport Region.” States in this region are required to
Figure 2 illustrates areas that would be in nonattainment
implement prescribed control measures, even in counties
of the same NAAQS were it revised to a level of 70
that are in attainment for ozone. Atmospheric science has
progressed significantly
Figure 1
since 1990, reinforcing the
Areas in Nonattainment of the 2008 NAAQS for Ground-Level Ozone20
need to reduce interstate
transport of air pollution.
Counties with Monitors Violating the March 2008 Ground-level Ozone Standards
In fact, the core purpose
0.075 parts per million (Based on 2006-2008 air quality data)
of the EPA’s recent CSAPR
rule is to address this
obligation.
The Clean Air Act
requires the EPA to review
all NAAQS periodically
to determine whether the
standards for each criteria
pollutant should be revised
based on new medical
or scientific evidence.
Generally reviews are to
take place at five-year
19 The EPA is scheduled
to review whether the
existing ozone standard
is adequate to protect
public health and the
environment in 2013.
20 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2010b
322 of 675
monitored counties
violate the standard
Notes:
1. Counties with at least one monitor with complete data for 2006-2008.
2. To determine compliance with the March 2008 ozone standards,
the 3-year average is truncated to three decimal places.
10
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
ppb, 65 ppb, or 60 ppb and assuming nonattainment
designations were made on the basis of the same 20062008 monitoring data. If the NAAQS for ground-level
ozone were set to one of these more stringent levels, the
number of counties in nonattainment would increase by
60%, 90%, or more than double, respectively. The fact
that EPA is required to reassess NAAQS regularly – and to
revise them if scientifically warranted – suggests that states
should continually seek cost-effective emission reduction
opportunities in order to reduce the risk of a future
nonattainment classification and its attendant obligations.
State Implementation Plans
A SIP is a collection of emission reduction regulations,
policies, and programs developed by state air quality agen-
cies that together are expected to enable the state to attain or
maintain the NAAQS by a date certain. SIPs must be submitted to and approved by the EPA. SIPs have been required under the Clean Air Act since 1970, and the EPA approved the
first SIPs for states, territories, and the District of Columbia
in 1972. Since then, most states have submitted many SIP
revisions, either on their own initiative or because they were
required to do so by subsequent Clean Air Act amendments
or revisions to air pollution standards. Although attainment
of NAAQS is the most prevalent role of SIPs, they are also often employed by states to secure delegation of several Clean
Air Act programs unrelated to the NAAQS as well.22
States with nonattainment areas for one or more criteria
pollutants must identify, adopt, and incorporate into an
“attainment demonstration SIP” a comprehensive suite of
emission reduction measures (often including prescriptive
Figure 2
Areas Potentially in Nonattainment of a Future NAAQS
for Ground-Level Ozone21
Counties with Monitors Violating Primary 8-hour Ground-level Ozone Standards
0.060 – 0.070 parts per million (Based on 2006-2008 air quality data)
EPA will not designate areas as nonattainment on these data, but likely on 2008-2010 data
which are expected to show improved air quality.
515 counties violate 0.070 ppm
93 additional counties violate 0.065 ppm
for a total of 608
42 additional counties violate 0.060 ppm
for a total of 650
Notes:
1. No monitored counties outside the continental
U.S. violate the standards.
2. EPA is proposing to determine compliance with a
revised primary ozone standard by rounding the
3-year average to three decimal places.
11
21U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2010c
22Certain sections of the
Clean Air Act (e.g., New
Source Performance Standards, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants) require the
EPA to establish emissions
standards applicable on a
nationwide basis. In order
for states to assume the EPA’s
enforcement role for these
standards, they must adopt
measures at least as stringent
as the federal rules. States
typically do so by adopting
these standards into their SIP
and submitting it to the EPA
for review. After the EPA’s approval, the state is delegated
authority/responsibility for
enforcement of those provisions. Until such time as
these programs are delegated
to the State, the EPA is the
primary enforcement agency.
For more information see
http://www.epa.gov/region1/
topics/air/sips/REVISED_
WHATS_NOT_IN_A_SIP.pdf
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
measures required by the Clean Air Act) that will improve
air quality in the area from nonattainment to attainment
by a date certain. Once it reaches attainment, a state is
required to file a “maintenance SIP” to ensure that its air
quality remains healthy going forward, and what specific
actions the state will take if it does not. States also must
submit general “infrastructure” elements within their SIPs
to demonstrate that they meet basic program conditions
for managing air quality and have the capacity to attain,
maintain, and enforce a new or revised NAAQS. States are
also subject to occasional “SIP calls” by the EPA that compel
them to adopt certain emission controls on certain sources.
The agency’s recent CSAPR rule, which requires reductions
in SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units in
28 eastern states, reflects this approach.
The SIP process begins when an NAAQS is established
or revised. Depending on their air quality status, states
may need to make many or few SIP submittals. A state may
submit a SIP to address ground-level ozone, for instance,
and another one to address particulate matter pollution.
Some SIP submittals are voluminous filings (e.g., to address
a first-time nonattainment designation); other SIP revisions
are essentially administrative in nature. Accordingly,
SIPs are not “plans” in the traditional sense; there is no
three-ring binder at the front desk of the Department of
Environmental Protection containing “the SIP.” Rather, a
nonattainment state’s SIP filings typically span thousands
of pages reflecting federal obligations, adopted regulations,
modeling, data sets, assumptions, public comments, and
so on. Figure 3 illustrates the overall SIP process and also
reflects the fact that NAAQS are occasionally revised based
on periodic scientific reviews.
States are required to operate a network of air quality
testing devices that measure the concentrations of
23 James, 2012. Based on an earlier graphic characterizing
the iterative nature of air quality management in National
Research Council, 2004, 34. OAQPS is the EPA’s Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards; OECA is the EPA’s Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Figure 3
Illustration of Periodic NAAQS Revisions and State SIP Processes under the Clean Air Act 23
New regulations and
requirements may be issued
until standards are met.
Federal
EPA Revises
Ambient Air
Standards
(Every 5 years)
EPA takes into account new
scientific research
States
Monitor
Ambient Air
Pollutants
Plan Takes
Effect and Is
Continuously
Revised
Air quality is continuously
monitored. If levels do not
decrease, then data is reevaluated
and the planning process resumes.
EPA approves all monitoring stations
and regulates quality assurance
EPA Regional
Office, OAQPS
and OECA Work
to Approve SIP
Regional EPA serves as liaisons between
state authorities and other EPA offices.
State
Authorities
Develop State
Implementation
Plan (SIP) to Meet
the Standards
with Help from
EPA
Federal EPA
Classifies
State Regions
According to
Air Standards
Air Quality Management Areas are
classified attainment or non-attainment
State authorities analyse data, assess sources, determine
technologies and policies that will reduce pollution to the level of
the standards. Local authorities convene stakeholder processes.
12
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
pollutants in the ambient air, activities that are funded
by the EPA. Based on the monitored data, state governors
propose attainment or nonattainment classifications for
each county. The EPA adjusts these as necessary and
determines the final designations. Nonattainment counties
are then obligated to develop a SIP within three years
that lays out an enforceable set of measures that it will
implement to reach attainment.
In order to develop a SIP, state air agencies enter
monitored ambient air quality data and inventoried
emissions data for each source category into air quality
models to create a baseline of existing conditions. These
air quality models assess the effects of pollution sources
and whatever control measures are implemented to reduce
pollution.24 States and the EPA input actual air quality
monitoring data, using data from the monitor with the
highest recorded concentrations of the pollutant(s) to be
controlled in the state (or metropolitan area), and emissions
inventory data for stationary, area, and mobile source
categories.25 The reason the highest pollutant concentration
in a state is used is that when new control measures are
developed and modeled, if they show air quality improving
sufficiently at the sites where ambient pollutant readings
are highest, then all other locations in the modeled domain
will assuredly attain the air quality standard as well. Then,
the projected emission reductions associated with different
pollution control strategies are modeled to determine their
impacts on air quality. By iteratively conducting this process
in consultation with the EPA, states ultimately arrive at
a combination of measures that are expected to lower
emissions enough to meet the NAAQS.
Air quality modeling is immensely complex due to
highly variable emissions, wind, and weather affecting
the inherently dynamic atmospheric chemistry involved.
As a result, most air quality modeling has been limited
to the interplay of policy goals (e.g., regulatory targets),
emissions, meteorology, time, and ambient pollutant
concentrations. Scientific understanding of the underlying
processes has improved, however, as has understanding of
health impacts, climate change impacts, and energy system
and economic considerations. As a result, it is increasingly
possible to integrate multidisciplinary modeling (e.g.,
air quality, health, energy, and economic) in order to
provide decision makers with a far more comprehensive
and dynamic appreciation of available options and the
ramifications of their choices. Figure 4 (page 14) illustrates
the conceptual elements of an integrated model framework.
Air pollution regulations typically specify the sources
affected, emissions limits, how compliance is measured
and assured, recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
and penalties in the event of violations.26 Collectively the
pollution measures described in the SIP, together with
emissions reductions from federal programs implemented
by the EPA (e.g., motor vehicle emission standards), must
remove sufficient pollution from the air to attain the
NAAQS, as indicated by the air quality modeling. And
where transported pollution is an issue, they must reduce
emissions sufficiently to enable counties in neighboring
states downwind to attain the NAAQS as well. Although the
pollution measures chosen by states may vary substantially,
their emission reductions generally must adhere to five
key Clean Air Act requirements: that they be real, surplus,
permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable:
• Real: There must be a reduction in actual emissions,
resulting from a specific and identifiable action or
undertaking.
• Surplus: The pollution control measure must reduce
emissions above and beyond reductions required by
other mandatory air pollution programs.
• Permanent: The emissions reductions produced by
the pollution control measure must be permanent.
24 All models used must be EPA-approved. The EPA has developed most of the air quality models used by states. For more
information see http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidanceindex.htm.
25 Actual emissions from stationary sources are input to the
air quality model. Data from area sources are obtained from
demographic factors relevant to the individual state. Mobile
source emissions data are usually obtained from the EPA and
adjusted as appropriate to the state’s fleet characteristics.
26 States are required to inspect all major pollution sources each
year. Any violations of permit conditions or regulatory standards must be addressed and corrected. Sources that enjoyed
economic benefit due to noncompliance must be penalized
an amount equal to the value of the economic benefit plus
an amount sufficient to prevent a recurrence. The Clean Air
Act authorizes the EPA to assess penalties of up to $37,500
per day per violation. Each state also has its own penalty
policy, which is reviewed and approved by the EPA. See also,
for example, the EPA’s annual compliance and enforcement
reports; the 2011 report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2011/index.html
13
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Figure 4
Illustration of an Integrated Modeling Framework 27
Global
Climate Model
Regional-Scale
Climate Model
Climate
Impacts Models
Goals and Policies
Energy and
Market Data
Energy Model
(NE-MARKAL)
Emissions and
Meteorology
Emissions
Health
Data
Air Quality Model
(CMAQ)
Health Benefits Model
(BenMAP)
Expenditures
Costs,
Benefits, and
Adaptations
Due to Climate
Change
Economic Model
(REMI)
Ozone
Damage,
Acid
Deposition
Ambient
Concentrations
and
Temperature
Health Effects
Incidence and
Cost-Benefit
Key
Economic
Indicators
(e.g., Jobs)
• Quantifiable: Calculation
the regulations to the EPA. A complete,
A complete,
methodologies must be acceptable,
approvable SIP is extensive; it includes
approvable SIP
transparent, and replicable, and the raw
includes information information about emission inventories,
data required to verify the calculations
monitoring networks, air quality analyses,
about emission
must be available.
modeling assumptions and results, attainment
inventories,
• Enforceable: State and/or federal
demonstrations, enforcement mechanisms,
monitoring
authorities must be able to enforce the
networks, air quality and the adopted regulations. The finished SIP
pollution control measure through legal
is submitted to the EPA for approval, revision,
analyses, modeling
processes.
or rejection. The EPA’s review and approval
assumptions and
Once the modeling of control strategies is
process also can be quite lengthy.
results, attainment
completed, formal (i.e., notice and comment)
Although the states and localities are
demonstrations,
or informal stakeholder processes are often
normally responsible for enforcing the
enforcement
convened to gather feedback from industry
mechanisms, and the requirements of the SIP, the EPA can also
representatives, the public, non-governmental adopted regulations. enforce them. This is because the underlying
organizations, experts, and others on the
statutory authority for these rules is the
package of regulations that are proposed in
federal Clean Air Act. Although it is delegated
the SIP. Similar processes for nonattainment areas that
to states initially, the EPA bears ultimate responsibility
cross state boundaries are often convened by councils of
for achieving its purposes and, if necessary, enforcing its
governments or as part of other multi-state, multi-agency
requirements. Although infrequent, the EPA can initiate
planning processes. The EPA itself often participates in
enforcement actions against entities that violate regulations
these processes, either directly to comment, or to assist and or requirements in state SIPs and has done so on occasion.
offer advice.
If a state or locality refuses to develop and implement an
Several months to a year may be required to develop
approvable SIP to address nonattainment, the EPA has the
the SIP regulations to address nonattainment. Many states
also require legislative approval before the state can submit 27 Colburn, 2004
14
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
authority and responsibility to develop and
The degree to which then issue a new, later attainment date.
implement its own Federal Implementation
SIPs are not static documents; they are
a single source may
Plan (FIP) instead, or to impose sanctions
continually
being re-evaluated and revised.
degrade the air
including withholding of federal highway
Pollution levels in local areas periodically
depends upon the
funds.
influence the source change, regulations as implemented may turn
Other remedies exist for cases in which
out to be more or less effective than expected,
will have on the
a downwind state is affected by pollution
population growth and economic activity
surrounding areas
emitted in and then transported from another,
levels change and create corresponding
and the NAAQS
upwind state by prevailing winds. The
changes in air pollution, so SIPs are often
classifications of
Clean Air Act provides that states affected
adjusted to maintain their course toward
those areas.
by transported pollution may petition the
achieving attainment. Additionally, improved
EPA to compel the upwind state (or states)
scientific understanding may lead the EPA
to reduce its emissions. Once submitted, the EPA has 60
to issue a SIP call requiring one or more states to adopt
days to take action on the petition. If the EPA agrees with
additional control measures to reduce local air pollution or
the state’s petition, the EPA will impose federal conditions
emissions transported to downwind jurisdictions.
on the upwind state. These federal conditions will remain
In addition to NAAQS, there are many other
in effect unless and until the upwind state revises its SIP
requirements and provisions of the Clean Air Act. Many
or develops a new SIP incorporating state regulations
of these other provisions, described below, also are
that reduce pollutant emissions enough to minimize their
incorporated into state SIPs.
impact on air quality in the downwind state. Because the
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).
attainment status of a state is based on actual measured
This permitting program applies to the construction
pollutant concentrations in that state, however (regardless
or modification of major sources in areas that attain
of origin of the pollution), the downwind state may be
the NAAQS. The degree to which a single source
required to adopt additional control measures as well
may degrade the air depends upon the influence the
to assure that its air quality does not degrade. In such
source will have on the surrounding areas and the
circumstances, the downwind state may impose additional
NAAQS classifications of those areas. The incremental
control requirements on power plants, and, depending on
degradation allowed by a single source is much less
that state’s regulatory procedures, the utilities that own or
if it impacts a national park or wilderness area than
operate the affected power plants may request cost-recovery
for other areas that meet the NAAQS. Sources in
of their pollution control expenses.
nonattainment areas for ozone must still do PSD for
SIPs and their supporting documents must also
all other pollutants, including NOX, which is both a
demonstrate continuous improvement in reducing
precursor to ozone and a criteria pollutant. States are
pollution and progressing toward attainment. In
required to prepare SIPs under this program, and can
conjunction with the EPA, states must assess the efficacy
also operate a federally delegated PSD program.
of their control measures through regular “Rate of
Progress” (ROP) and/or “Reasonable Further Progress”
• New Source Performance Standards. These
(RFP) determinations. These processes essentially compare
standards require that new or modified major
emissions reductions and air quality improvement to the
industrial sources of emissions must be equipped with
amount of time remaining until the required attainment
the “best system” of emissions control available. Such
date. Nonattainment areas that are running “behind
standards have been developed for many types of
schedule” may be required to adopt additional control
28
facilities, including electric generating units, primary
measures. Nonattainment areas that do not attain the
NAAQS by the required date must submit a new SIP
revision for EPA approval, including additional measures
28 Typically states are required to demonstrate that emissions of
as the EPA may require. Their nonattainment severity
the subject pollutant decline at a rate equal to or greater than
three percent per year.
classification may also be “bumped up,” and the EPA may
15
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
metal production facilities, oil refineries, cement
manufacturing plants, and large industrial boilers.
A current question is whether energy efficiency
measures might qualify as the “best system” for
NSPS purposes. Also, as counterintuitive as it may
sound, the EPA has the authority to promulgate NSPS
standards for existing sources as well (i.e., not only
new sources) when a pollutant is not regulated as a
HAP or subject to an NAAQS.29
of the best performing 12% of facilities in the same
industrial category. This is the program under which
the EPA promulgated the MATS rule requiring
reductions in mercury emissions from power plants.
• The Acid Rain Control program. This program
capped the total amount of emissions of SO2 from
all large electric generating units, new and existing,
and allocated emissions “allowances” – for free – to
sources based on their historical emissions. Each
allowance is equivalent to the emission of one ton of
SO2. Sources covered by the program could then buy
or sell allowances. This enabled greater reductions to
be achieved at the more cost-effective facilities, which
could then sell their extra allowances – in an open
market – to facilities where emission controls would
be more expensive to install. This program provided
the first large-scale, successful, commercial test of the
market-based concept known as “cap-and-trade.” NOX
emissions can also contribute to acid rain; the Acid
Rain Program did not set a cap on NOX emissions,
but instead set emission rate limitations for coal-fired
units and allowed utilities to develop more flexible
system-wide compliance strategies.30
• New Source Review (NSR). This program establishes
additional permitting requirements for new “major
sources” of air pollution in nonattainment areas under
the NAAQS. NSR requirements also apply to major
modifications to existing facilities. New sources (or
major modifications) can be allowed in nonattainment
areas if (1) “offsetting” emissions reductions are
obtained from existing sources in the same area (at a
ratio based on nonattainment severity but typically
greater than 1:1), and (2) the source is equipped with
stringent technology-based controls that represent the
“lowest achievable emission rate” (LAER). The rationale
for this program lies in the relative ease of controlling
emissions from new facilities, and the “grandfathering”
of older facilities with high emission rates under
the Clean Air Act. To dissuade sources from simply
upgrading older, “grandfathered” facilities in order to
avoid LAER requirements, the Act purposefully applied
NSR and PSD requirements to major modifications of
existing facilities. This has led to contentious debates
about whether the Act effectively discourages plant
upgrades that would result in cleaner, more efficient
operations, but which fall short of LAER. It has also
led to numerous enforcement actions and resulting
legal challenges about exactly what comprises a major
modification.
• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. Covered industrial facilities emitting
toxic air pollutants must be equipped with “Maximum
Available Control Technology” (MACT) to reduce
these emissions. For new sources, MACT reflects the
best performing single similar facility in existence in
the United States or elsewhere. For existing facilities,
MACT requires emissions control technology
reflecting the average emission reduction performance
• Emissions limitations associated with other
Clean Air Act programs may also affect power
sector sources. Specifically, the Regional Haze
program, which seeks to preserve and improve
visibility in the nation’s “airsheds,” may require “best
available retrofit technology” (BART) for SO2 and/
or NOX emissions from existing sources. Although
excessive ozone and particulate matter are the
predominant causes of nonattainment, in some
circumstances ambient levels of SO2, NOX, CO, or
other criteria pollutants may also lead to an area being
designated as nonattainment.
29 Notably for total reduced sulfur emissions from pulp and
paper mills, municipal waste combustor emissions, and most
recently, for GHG emissions from power plants.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, year unknown A
16
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
The SIP process is one of the principal air quality
management tools in the United States, and it reflects an
effective balancing of national, state, and local interests in
improving and maintaining air quality protective of the
public’s health and welfare. The SIP process creates an
effective partnership between state and federal governments
and allows tailor-made emission reduction programs to
be developed for individual jurisdictions. The SIP process
has also created a uniform methodology of measuring
emissions across the United States, along with sophisticated
models for linking emissions with air quality. Perhaps most
important, the SIP process has worked: criteria pollutant
emissions have decreased,31 air quality has improved, and
many areas of the United States have attained the NAAQS.
However, the SIP process is also enormously resourceintensive for state and local agencies as well as for the
EPA. Appropriate concerns about the need to improve the
SIP process – both technically and in terms of its resource
requirements – have been raised. The National Research
Council’s comprehensive 2004 report offers an accurate
overview:
The SIP process is an important and essential
component of the nation’s air quality management system.
It allows state and local agencies to take into account
emission controls adopted at the federal and multistate
levels and then choose a suitable suite of additional
local emission-control measures to reach attainment.
On balance, this process should provide an appropriate
division of responsibility. It can also provide the basis
for a constructive partnership between the federal and
state governments that steadily improves air quality on
the local, multistate, and national levels. Air quality
monitoring data confirm that such improvements have
occurred in the past two decades. Nevertheless, important
adjustments to the SIP process are needed if the difficult
challenges ahead are to be effectively addressed.32
Specific criticisms of the SIP process as it is currently
implemented include that it:
• Is overly bureaucratic, time consuming, and
complicated, and focuses primarily on compliance
with process steps;
• Overemphasizes attainment demonstrations as
opposed to tracking and measuring actual progress
and performance more frequently;
The SIP process has worked: criteria pollutant
emissions have decreased, air quality has improved,
and many areas of the United States have attained
the NAAQS. However, the SIP process is also
enormously resource-intensive for state and
local agencies as well as for the EPA. Appropriate
concerns about the need to improve the SIP process
— both technically and in terms of its resource
requirements — have been raised.
• Takes a single-pollutant focus instead of a more costeffective and synergistic multi-pollutant focus;
• Lacks adequate mechanisms for addressing multi-state
air pollution problems; and
• Fails to achieve attainment of ozone and particulate
matter NAAQS in many areas.33
In addition, as one might expect in methods developed
nearly a quarter century ago, the SIP process has not
been ideally amenable to changing technologies and
innovative practices. For the purposes of this paper,
examples include difficulties in readily incorporating and
crediting output-based regulatory approaches to electric
generation, renewable energy, distributed generation,
and energy efficiency. Some of these difficulties relate to
uncertainties in quantification, permanence, enforceability,
and precisely where the resulting reductions in generation
(and associated emissions) occur. These are not trivial
concerns, but the SIP process must be made amenable to
the economic, public health, energy, and environmental
benefits that these measures can provide.
Although the SIP process is resource-intensive, it has
provided a major impetus for the development of state
air pollution monitoring and control efforts. States have
found the process arduous, but the relative flexibility that
SIPs provide enables states to tailor – to some degree –
which categories of sources and what level of emission
reductions will be targeted in the control measures that
31NOX emissions from power plants have decreased by 33%
since 1990 and SO2 emissions have decreased by 41% since
1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air
Markets Program, year unknown C
32 National Research Council, 2004, 128
33 National Research Council, 2004
17
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
the state adopts to meet air quality requirements. This is
difficult and challenging, but provides more options than
the alternative: “command and control” dictates from the
federal government. In addition, the funding and other
resources that the EPA provides to support air quality
monitoring, planning, and enforcement are important
benefits for states. A few states routinely convene meetings
between their air quality agencies and PUCs to discuss
air quality planning as it relates to energy issues. These
informal meetings allow PUC staff to provide input to the
air regulator and also help inform the Commission about
areas in which it may need to get involved or provide
advance notice about future regulatory proceedings. Such
informal meetings are not mandated by the Clean Air Act,
but states that use them have found them very helpful for
both energy and air quality planning purposes. Sharing
issues, developments, and strategies also provides both
agencies greater opportunity to prepare for and most
effectively address the energy or economic aspects of
air quality requirements – or the air quality impacts of
upcoming utility or Commission decisions. Further, it helps
to assure that both air quality and energy regulators are
receiving the same information from affected utilities.
programs to individual state circumstances. And although
the costs of the SIP program and other Clean Air Act
provisions are high, the benefits of the Act over the past 40
years far outweigh its costs. The Clean Air Act amendments
of 1990 prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths in
2010, and this number is expected to increase to 230,000
by 2020.34 The costs of meeting all the 1990 Clean Air Act
provisions in 2020 are estimated to be $65 billion, whereas
the benefits from reduced death and illness, improved
economic welfare, and better environmental conditions are
estimated to be almost $2 trillion by 2020.35 Analyses of
the costs and benefits of federal regulations by the White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – under
both Republican36 and Democratic37 Administrations alike
– consistently suggest that of the total benefits of major
federal regulations adopted by all federal agencies, about
80% are attributable to the Clean Air Act compared to
only about 50% of the costs. Further, economic indicators
appear to contradict assertions that the Clean Air Act has
impaired the economy. As Figure 5 illustrates, emissions of
the six criteria pollutants together have fallen by 63% since
1970, while private sector jobs increased by 86%, GDP
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, year unknown B
Effectiveness of the Federal Clean Air Act
35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011
Developing and implementing SIPs can be challenging
and onerous for states, and somewhat risky due to their
federal enforceability. Few states, however, would forego the
opportunity SIPs provide to tailor Clean Air Act regulatory
36 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2008. This analysis
by President Bush’s OMB of major federal regulations
adopted 1997-2007, listed the EPA Office of Air benefits at
$79-573 billion against total benefits of $122-656 billion and
costs of $26-29 billion against total costs of $46-54 billion.
37 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2011. This analysis
by President
Obama’s OMB
Economic Growth vs. Reduction in Criteria Pollutant Emissions, 1970-200938
of major federal
regulations adopted
204%: Gross Domestic Product
200
2000-2010, listed
170
168%: Vehicle Miles Traveled
the EPA Office of Air
140
benefits at $77-535
billion against total
110
benefits of $132-655
86%: Private Sector Jobs
80
billion and costs
50%: Population
50
of $19-24 billion
41%: Energy Consumption
against total costs of
20
$44-62 billion.
Percent Change from 1970 Levels
Figure 5
-10
-40
- 63%: Aggregate Emissions
(Six Common Pollutants)
-70
1970 1973197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009
18
38 U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency, 2011
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
grew by 204%, and population, energy consumption, and
vehicle miles traveled all increased markedly.
use, transportation, energy, and ecosystem health.41
Ideally air quality management planning should seek to
integrate all or most pollutants and air quality measures and
activities into a single, internally consistent, cost-effective
Air Quality Management Plans:
approach to improving air quality, public health, and welfare.
Moving Beyond SIPs
This approach offers economies of scale, because most air
pollutants come from similar sources and precursors, and
The accomplishments of the Clean Air Act are truly
strategies for controlling them are often similar. In addition,
noteworthy. Nevertheless, as noted above, it has significant
comprehensive air quality management planning can address
room for improvement in light of current knowledge,
problems caused by multiple air pollutants at the same time
a fact that is unsurprising given that Congress last
and interrelationships among pollutants, offering a pollution
reauthorized the Act over two decades ago. In the case
control framework that operates with internal consistency,
of SIPs specifically, the process is time-consuming and
rather than sometimes at cross-purposes. Comprehensive air
complicated; it may not be optimally effective at reducing
multiple pollutants; and it requires states to focus narrowly quality management planning would encompass measures
to mitigate criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants,
on one criteria pollutant at a time. The comprehensive
and GHGs as required by federal law, as well as any more
2004 NRC report recommended numerous improvements,
stringent standards or goals that may be
but few have yet been adopted by
Comprehensive air quality
set by the individual state. As suggested
Congress or the EPA. Accordingly,
planning
that
integrates
multiple
throughout this paper, however,
some jurisdictions are moving forward
pollutants is only half the answer; comprehensive air quality planning
on their own and have – through
comprehensive integration of
that integrates multiple pollutants is
their actions – begun to consider
energy planning and air quality
only half the answer; comprehensive
how the SIP process might be
planning
is
ultimately
essential
integration of energy planning and air
transformed into a more performancefor the development of reliable,
quality planning is ultimately essential
oriented, multi-pollutant air quality
affordable,
clean
energy
solutions.
for the development of reliable,
management planning process. The
affordable, clean energy solutions.
2010 Clean Air Plan of the Bay Area
Although a comprehensive
Air Quality Management District in
discussion about the process, benefits, costs, and
San Francisco, California is a good example of movement
39
issues associated with developing and implementing
in this direction. The first comprehensive multi-pollutant
comprehensive air quality management planning in
clean air plan of its kind in the United States, this plan
concert with state energy planning is beyond the scope of
applies to all pollutants, including criteria, toxic, and GHG
emissions. It includes 55 control measures across stationary this paper, this approach promises to provide increased
opportunity for cooperation and collaboration, because
sources, mobile sources, transportation, land-use, and
state energy agencies have substantial experience with leastenergy/climate sectors, many of which are designed to
cost integrated resource planning to share.
address the root causes of emissions, not just end-of-pipe
emission controls.40 New York State also has a concerted
multi-pollutant planning effort underway. Working with
the New York State Energy Research & Development
Authority (NYSERDA), the Department of Environmental
Conservation is developing an Air Quality Management
Plan that addresses air quality concerns, including
39 The full plan and executive summary are available at http://
nonattainment and maintenance of criteria pollutant
www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/
NAAQS, sector-based emission control strategies, emission
Clean-Air-Plans.aspx
and risk reductions of HAPs, climate change, and regional
40 James & Schultz, 2011
haze and visibility. To the extent practicable, it will also
41 Bielawa, 2011
include such considerations as environmental justice, land
19
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Conclusion
O
ur nation’s electricity system faces
state air officials with nonattainment areas enjoy
Half of all U.S.
multiple urgent challenges to
some flexibility but face absolute accountability
citizens still
address mounting transmission
breathe unhealthy for identifying, developing, and implementing a
needs, to install and adapt to
comprehensive, multi-sector suite of measures
air by virtue
smart grid technologies, to expand the use of
to reduce pollutant emissions enough to reach
of living in a
renewable energy, to capture unprecedented
attainment: the SIP. Following their exhaustive
nonattainment
energy efficiency opportunity, and to
development, SIPs must also be approved by
area for at least
meet increasingly stringent environmental
the EPA, and once the Agency does so, it is
one pollutant.
requirements. Air quality management in the
empowered to enforce the state programs and
United States faces equally daunting challenges
provisions within the SIP.
imposed by science-based mandates for greater health and
Further, just as state energy regulators face a continuing
environmental protection, diminishing state and federal
challenge to determine precisely what is “just and
budgetary support, and clear signs of aging in traditional
reasonable,” “used and useful,” or “prudent” in today’s
“stovepiped” regulatory approaches. At the same time, half
technologically, economically, and politically disruptive era,
of all U.S. citizens still breathe unhealthy air by virtue of
state air quality officials also face a moving target as the EPA
living in a nonattainment area for at least one pollutant,42
– again adhering to Clean Air Act directives – periodically
and America’s near century-long global economic
reviews and modifies NAAQS to incorporate new scientific
leadership is today in jeopardy.
and medical evidence. For state air officials, such NAAQS
In this context, conflict between appropriate health
revisions create the risk of new nonattainment areas, a
and environmental protections on one hand and a reliable
worsening of existing nonattainment area classifications, or
electricity supply on the other is simply untenable;
both.
they cannot continue to be each other’s worst obstacle.
The Clean Air Act has certainly been successful;
Rather than remain caught in a vicious cycle of increasing
aggregate air pollutant emissions are down dramatically
emissions, environmental regulations, costs, and reliability
since its passage, despite significant increases in GDP,
impacts, energy and air regulators have the opportunity
population, energy consumption, and jobs. The Act is
to create a “virtuous cycle” if they choose to engage jointly
credited with a disproportionate share of the benefits of
in creating reliable, affordable, clean energy solutions.
all federal regulations from all agencies, benefits that far
This essential outcome will not happen until energy and
outnumber its costs.
air quality regulators affirmatively decide to work closely
The latest reauthorization of the Clean Air Act is now
together, and understand what motivates each agency and
over 20 years old, however, and is showing signs of age.
how they each conduct their work.
It doesn’t encourage innovation or enable cost-effective
For energy regulators and staff – the intended audience
multi-pollutant emission reduction approaches, for
for this paper – such understanding begins with an
instance, nor does it satisfactorily address multi-state
appreciation of the federal Clean Air Act’s provisions
regarding NAAQS and SIPs. Arguably the most complex
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012a. The EPA’s
piece of environmental legislation ever passed, the Clean
report indicates 154,454,000 people live in an area that is
Air Act requires that the EPA establish health-based NAAQS
in nonattainment for at least one of the NAAQS; the U.S.
without regard to costs. States must achieve those standards
Census Bureau indicates that the United States population as
by a date certain or face serious sanctions. To meet this bar,
of July 2011 was 311,591,917.
20
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
air pollution issues. Its requirements are
working closely and purposefully to
Rather than remain
often overly bureaucratic and prescriptive.
caught in a vicious cycle simultaneously meet state energy and
The last amendments to the Act occurred
of increasing emissions, air quality goals, energy and air quality
prior to electricity restructuring, and its
regulators can best satisfy the public’s
environmental
framers did not contemplate distributed
interest. If energy regulators choose not to
regulations, costs, and
generation, demand response, renewable
engage with their air quality counterparts
reliability impacts,
portfolio standards, the electrification
energy and air regulators in this quest, air regulators will be left with
of transportation, or the disruptive
have the opportunity to only those solutions under their control,
technologies now in development. Some
create a “virtuous cycle” which are reasonably likely to favor endstates are moving ahead on their own to
if they choose to engage of-pipe options costing far more than
adopt air quality planning approaches that
solutions that are available under the PUCs’
jointly in creating
include multiple pollutants, multiple states, reliable, affordable, clean control. Air officials, of course, have a
and even multiple agencies – specifically
similar obligation to engage with the PUCs.
energy solutions.
energy and air quality authorities.
By jointly answering the call to action for
The public demands reliable, affordable,
least-cost air quality compliance, air quality
clean energy solutions. By understanding the obligations,
and energy regulators may well create a template for future
structure, and processes in which each agency acts, and
improvements to the Clean Air Act.
21
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Appendix A
Required SIP Elements for Certain NAAQS
43
Acronyms used to describe the required SIP elements
below include:
• CTG – control technique guidelines
• I/M – inspection and maintenance (motor vehicle
tailpipe testing)
• NOX – oxides of nitrogen
• NSR – new source review
• PSD – prevention of significant deterioration
• RACM – reasonably available control measures
• RACT – reasonably available control technique
• RFP – reasonable further progress
• TCMs – transportation control measures
• VMT – vehicle miles traveled
• VOC – volatile organic compounds
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ozone Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
Standard Nonattainment Areas and the Northeast
Ozone Transport Region
•
•
The required SIP elements tracked for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard are:
•
• Ozone Attainment Demonstration (including emissions
limits and other control measures adopted by the state)
• RFP (VOC and NOX) for current classification
• Emissions Inventory
• Clean Fuels for Fleets
• Contingency Measures (VOC and NOX)
• Contingency Provisions for RFP Milestones
• Emissions Statement
• Enhanced Monitoring - Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
• I/M Basic
• I/M Enhanced
• Nonattainment NSR program for current classification
• Stage II vehicle refueling vapor recovery or equivalent
•
•
•
•
•
•
TCMs to Offset Growth
VMT Demonstrations and TCMs
Severe/Extreme Area Fee Program
RACT Non-CTG VOC for Major Sources
RACT NOX for Major Sources
RACT VOC CTG Aerospace
RACT VOC CTG Bulk Gasoline Plants
RACT VOC CTG Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants
RACT VOC CTG Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood
Paneling
RACT VOC CTG Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
Equipment
RACT VOC CTG Graphic Arts - Rotogravure and
Flexography
RACT VOC CTG Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners
RACT VOC CTG Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and
Vapor Collection Systems
RACT VOC CTG Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment
RACT VOC CTG Manufacture of High-Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins
RACT VOC CTG Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
Tires
RACT VOC CTG Manufacture of Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products
RACT VOC CTG Petroleum Liquid Storage in External
Floating Roof Tanks
RACT VOC CTG Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds
RACT VOC CTG Shipbuilding/repair
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b
22
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
• RACT VOC CTG SOCMI Air Oxidation Processes
• RACT VOC CTG SOCMI Distillation and Reactor
Processes
• RACT VOC CTG Solvent Metal Cleaning
• RACT VOC CTG Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service Stations
• RACT VOC CTG Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed
Roof Tanks
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating for Insulation of
Magnet Wire
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Cans
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Coils
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Fabrics
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Large Appliances
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products
• RACT VOC CTG Surface Coating of Paper
• RACT VOC CTG Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals
• RACT VOC CTG Use of Cutback Asphalt
• RACT VOC CTG Wood Furniture
• RACT VOC CTG Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (2006)
• RACT VOC CTG Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
(2006)
• RACT VOC CTG Industrial Cleaning Solvents (2006)
• RACT VOC CTG Lithographic Printing Materials and
Letterpress Printing Materials (2006)
• RACT VOC CTG Large Appliance Coatings (2007)
• RACT VOC CTG Metal Furniture Coatings (2007)
• RACT VOC CTG Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (2007)
• RACT VOC CTG Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings
(2008)
• RACT VOC CTG Plastic Parts Coatings (2008)
• RACT VOC CTG Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings (2008)
• RACT VOC CTG Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
Materials, and Miscellaneous (2008)
• RACT VOC CTG Industrial Adhesives (2008)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Area
Requirements
The required SIP elements tracked for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
23
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration
PM2.5 Contingency Measures
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area NSR Program
PM2.5 RACM/RACT
PM2.5 RFP
Emissions Inventory
State Implementation Plans: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?
Bibliography
Bielawa, R. (2011). An air quality management plan for New York
state. Presented at EUEC 2011, Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved from
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/aqmp013111.pdf
Colburn, K. (2004). Illustration of Integrated Modeling
Framework.
Federal Register (2012). Volume 77, Number 30, Classification for
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) for Areas Subject to
Section 51.1102(a), p. 8209. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.
gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-14/html/2012-3284.htm
James, C. (2012). U.S. Air Quality Management Framework
Introduction. Jinan, China.
James, C., & Schultz, R. (2011) Climate-Friendly Air Quality
Management. Montpelier, VT: Regulatory Assistance Project.
Retrieved from http://www.raponline.org/document/download/
id/4700.
National Research Council and the Council on Air Quality
Management in the United States. (2004). Air quality
management in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press. Retrieved from: http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=10728
U.S. Code 42 § 7401 et. seq.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (2012). Title 40, Section 98,
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting. Retrieved from http://
ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b3668dd96f
b9ea0239b980bb1032fa5f&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr98_
main_02.tpl
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011). Annual Energy
Outlook 2011, Energy Consumption by Sector and Source
(Reference Case). Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/
aeo/pdf/tbla2.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010c). Counties
with monitors violating primary 8-hour ground-level ozone
standards 0.060-0.070 parts per million. Retrieved from http://
www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20100104maps.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Benefits and Costs
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/factsheet.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) The Clean Air Act:
Protecting Human Health and the Environment Since 1970 as
the US Economy has Grown. Retrieved from http://www.epa.
gov/air/sect812/economy.html#costs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Year Unknown A).
Cap and Trade: Acid Rain Program Basics. Retrieved from
www.epa.gov/captrade/documents/arbasics.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Year Unknown B). The
Clean Air Act: Protecting Human Health and the Environment
Since 1970 as the US Economy has Grown. Retrieved from:
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/economy.html#costs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Year Unknown C). Clean
Air Markets Program. Cap and Trade Program Results. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). Summary
Population Exposure Report. Retrieved from http://www.epa.
gov/airquality/greenbook/popexp.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Status
of nonattainment area and ozone transport region SIP
requirements. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/airquality/
urbanair/sipstatus/nonattainment.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). Effects of Air
Pollutants - Health Effects. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
apti/course422/ap7a.html
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2008). 2008 Report to
Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations
and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/assets/information_and_regulatory_affairs/2008_cb_final.
pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). Counties with
monitors violating the March 2008 ground-level ozone
standards 0.075 parts per million 0.075 parts per million.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/
pdfs/20100104maps.pdf
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2011). 2011 Report to
Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations
and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf
24
Acronyms
ASAI
Average Service Availability Index
NSR
BART Best Available Retrofit Technology
CAIDI
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
NYSERDA New York State Energy Research &
Development Authority
CAIFI
Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index
CIII
Customers Interrupted per Interruption Index
CMSA
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
CO Carbon Monoxide
OMB CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
O3Ozone
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Pb Lead
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
PBT
Persistent bioaccumulative toxin
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
ppb Parts per billion
HAPs
Hazardous Air Pollutants
ppm Parts per million
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineer
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
PUC
Public Utility Commission
MACT Maximum Available Control Technology
RFP Reasonable Further Progress
MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
ROP Rate of Progress
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
SAIDI
System Average Interruption Duration Index
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
SAIFI
System Average Interruption Frequency Index
NESHAP
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
TIPs Tribal Implementation Plans
NO2
Nitrogen Dioxide
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
NSPS
New Source Performance Standards
OAQPS New Source Review
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Office of Management and Budget
(White House)
The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) is a global, non-profit team of experts focused on the
long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the power and natural gas sectors. We provide
technical and policy assistance on regulatory and market policies that promote economic efficiency,
environmental protection, system reliability, and the fair allocation of system benefits among consumers. We
work extensively in the US, China, the European Union, and India.
Visit our website at www.raponline.org to learn more about our work.
This report was printed by Ecolor Printing, Inc., utilizing a four-color, digital waterless press.
No plate development or fountain chemistry is involved, greatly reducing the impact of the printing process on our environment.
Home Office
50 State Street, Suite 3
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
802-223-8199
www.raponline.org